Categories

About a year ago, while looking at something or other online, I saw that David Icke was going to be speaking at Wembley. Immediately, I bought a ticket. The tickets were quite expensive, between £40 – £60. I figured that if I was spending £40 on a ticket to see David Icke, I might as well spend £60 and get a better seat. That was a year ago. It seemed funny a year ago.

Since then, I’ve been to the “Inspired By David Icke” discussion groupseveraltimes. I’ve met quite a few people who believe Icke’s theories. I’ve gone to the pub with them. It’s easy to dismiss these people as weirdos and cranks, but on the whole, the people I’ve met have been fairly normal. Nice. Likeable. I say “on the whole”, because there have been a couple of exceptions (a guest speaker at one session spoke about how our souls choose the experiences we have in our lifetime, and so with positive thinking, we can ensure that we only have positive experiences. The problem with this, of course, is that it raises the question of why people have negative experiences – did the souls of babies dying of starvation or those maimed in wars or victims of abuse choose those experiences? Of course they didn’t and it’s vile to suggest they did. But apart from that bloke, they’ve been nice).

To prepare for seeing Icke at Wembley, I bought a DVD of a previous talk he had given. Human Race Get Off Your Knees: The Lion Sleeps No More was filmed at the Brixton Academy and is a four-disc set. This is why I was dreading seeing Icke at Wembley. I knew it was going to be a long day. At the end of the second disc of The Lion Sleeps No More, after speaking for several hours, Icke looks at his watch and says “Well, we’ve come a long way, haven’t we? What we’re going to do now is have a break for, say, forty-five minutes…”

I arrived at Wembley and took my seat (seat 12, row 4, block A2) unsure of quite what to expect. There was a giant screen with a picture of David Icke. A clock counted down. Music was playing: God by John Lennon, Holding Out For A Hero by Bonnie Tyler, Don’t Look Back In Anger by Oasis, I Want To Break Free by Queen. These same songs would play during each break. Holding Out For A Hero is a brilliant song. With a few minutes left, a group of dancers came on stage and did a sort of euphoric dance.

Icke’s son, Gareth, is in a slightly awful rock band, and they did a couple of songs before each session began. I suppose he can now say that his band have played Wembley Arena, but to be honest, it seemed like nepotism to me. Bloodlines.

If you are not familiar with Icke’s ideas, his basic theory is that the universe is created from vibrational energy. The world as we perceive it is just a holographic projection of this vibrational energy. Humans are infinite awareness, we are consciousness, but there is a conspiracy to stop us from realising our true potential and instead to keep us locked in “five sense reality”. This conspiracy is led by entities Icke refers to as Archons, who are reptilian multi-dimensional beings beaming messages from the rings of Saturn (the messages are then amplified by the Moon, which is a hollow structure designed for this purpose). By manipulating our genetic code, the Archons have trapped us in this five-sense prison (this he refers to as “the hijack”, although in the Bible, it is referred to as the fall of man). There are also genetically modified human/reptilian hybrids who control the population through the media, politics and finance in order to preserve their bloodlines and keep us in a state of fear and negativity. These emotions create low frequency energy which they feed off. To combat them, we should give out positive energy and “choose love”. It’s quite a simple idea.

Whenever people mention Icke, they always say that he thinks “lizards control the world”. I’m not sure why people always pick up on the fact they’re “lizards”. He’s talking about multi-dimensional beings from space controlling humanity. Is the oddest thing about that idea really the fact that those multi-dimensional beings happen to resemble lizards? Although I thought he cheated slightly at one point. He was explaining how ancient cultures all over the world depict reptilian beings in their art and folklore – the Uraeus of ancient Egypt, the serpent in the Garden of Eden, the Chinese dragon. In this list, he also included the story of the Frog Prince. That doesn’t count, surely. Frogs are amphibians. You can’t claim them as “reptilian” just because they’re green. That’s like saying a cucumber is a lizard.

To be honest, much of what he said was very similar to the stuff in The Lion Sleeps No More DVD, although he didn’t mention Saturn on the DVD. Maybe the Saturn stuff is new. On The Lion Sleeps No More DVD, he seems more interested in his idea of the “Moon Matrix”. This is his idea that the Moon is an artificial structure and is hollow. He explains how he came to this conclusion:

What happened was that I was writing this latest book and I sat down one morning, and I’ve had one or two thoughts about this before but they’ve come and gone, but I sat down one morning at the computer to start writing and it was like, and I’ve had this so many times in my life in the last twenty years, it was like an energy field descends upon me and suddenly, I just knew the Moon was not what it seems to be.

That sounds pretty convincing to me.

He didn’t explain how the Saturn theory came to him, but did talk extensively about the symbols used by secret societies and religions to represent Saturn (= Satan). This list included the following:

eyes

circles

pyramids

triangles

reptiles

owls

bulls

fire/flames

the Phoenix

crescents

horns

boats

goats

twin pillars/towers

concentric circles

rings

the number eight

spiders

the number 666

six-pointed stars

skulls/skull and crossbones

hexagons

cubes

squares

the Crucifix

the Kaaba

the tefillin

the colour black

the colour red

black and white squares/tiles

mortar boards

the Greek god Chronos

the Grim Reaper

time

Old Father Time

sickles/scythes

crowns

protruding tongues

white beards

Santa

It’s quite a long list and one which seems to include most shapes and ideas and colours and things. I was slightly disappointed that I wasn’t included in the list to be honest.

There was also a section on how these symbols are used in popular culture. Madonna and Lady Gaga both use a lot of them apparently, as do Jay-Z and Beyonce. One thing which was a bit odd was that he twice referred to imagery used by Annie Lennox during the Olympic opening ceremony and each time said “I’m not saying she’s involved in any of this” but never offered this benefit of the doubt to anyone else. I suspect Icke has a soft spot for Annie Lennox.

The third session involved Icke listing pretty much every conspiracy theory going and blaming it all on the Archontic influence: chemtrails, 9/11, 7/7, Dunblane, water fluoridation, global warming, Columbine, HAARP, Agenda 21. It’s all true, and it’s all the fault of the Archons. I’ve met a couple of 9/11 Truthers before, but I was still a bit shocked to hear thousands of people around me cheer when Icke claimed the Twin Towers were destroyed using directed-energy weapons.

Maybe it was a mistake to have paid the extra £20. I was four rows from the front, and while that meant that I could see everything perfectly (there were a couple of moments when Icke looked almost moved to tears), I didn’t really feel the scale of the event. Maybe if I’d been further back, I would have realised better just how many people were there.

The previous DVD I’d watched had quite a confrontational message: human race, get off your knees. At Wembley, Icke was more positive. Although having said that, there was quite a powerful bit at the end when Icke showed pictures of people working in the arms trade or in politics and simply shouted “WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YOU HAVE CHILDREN. YOU HAVE GRAND-CHILDREN. YOU SHOULDN’T BE DOING THIS”. You don’t have to believe in Archons to agree that “What are you doing?” is a good question to ask people in authority. “I’m sorry but it fucking makes me sick” he said, before adding “And yes, I am available for children’s parties”. These few moments of what appeared to be genuine anger stood out against what was otherwise a genial and often funny presentation. He does perhaps rely too often on the use of an exaggerated West Midlands accent in order to reinforce a weak punchline, but then so does Lenny Henry, and I doubt he could sell out a gig at Wembley Arena.

Eventually, nearly twelve hours after he originally took to the stage, Icke reached his conclusion. We need to choose love, he said. Since his Brixton talk a couple of years ago, we have seen riots on the streets of London. “What you fight, you become” he explains. You cannot fight a violent state through violence. Instead of violent protest, Icke proposes a “non-comply-dance”. Dancing in the face of authority. Positivity instead of aggression.

And here is Icke and his team of dancers doing their non-comply-dance:

This also happened:

Apologies for the poor quality of the video, but by that stage, I’d basically been drinking all day and had just spent twelve hours listening to David Icke talking about Archons. My favourite dancer is the guy in the white shirt and brown cords who is just behind the guy with long hair in the black T-shirt. Everyone else dances in a lost, euphoric way except for him. He waves his hands in the air and jumps from foot to foot in more or less the same way as David Baddiel in the video for Three Lions. I suspect he only agreed to dance on stage because he thought he might be able to kiss a girl if he did.

Icke even extended his message of love to the reptilian Archons and the bloodline elites who manipulate and control humanity. I thought that was nice.

Of course, you can laugh at Icke, make him a figure of fun, but ultimately, his message is a positive one. We are love. The logic behind every single step he’s taken might be completely wrong, it is completely wrong, yet somehow he’s ended up in almost the right place. And at the very least, you have to admire a man who can get thousands of people to come to Wembley Arena to watch a twelve-hour PowerPoint presentation.

We are love! David Icke might be a “nut”, I wouldn’t dispute that the majority of his theories are ludicrous but the underlining message remains, the planet would be a far nice place is people let a little bit more love into their lives rather than living so cynically and judgmental. Shine on you crazy diamond!

If you read the book with the same title, you will find a mass of other information to back up his ideas, many of which are based on research, not imagination. Most of his planetary stuff isn’t original. But no one on the planet can put it across like Icke. He’s a communicator, and a speaker of rare ability. His own spiritual experiences are not unique. Many others have experienced similar things in their lives. It’s because he is able to pull it all together, and put it all across that makes him exceptional.

The only part that I don’t understand yet is the holographic/perception one. This will take time to go through and deal with. If you are serious about understanding the kinds of subjects he’s dealing with, try taking three years before making up your mind. Or longer. Why does everyone think they can fathom these research based topics in one session? You can’t.

Have you spent three years studying James Ward’s ideas? If you are serious about understanding this piece, you really need to understand what kind of pens he likes, and about his interest in automated farm machinery, and how he is always a day late for everything.

He’s not the only one who’s ever been late – I’m not saying that, of course I’m not saying that. His own boring experiences are not unique. But nobody on the planet can pull a load of boring stuff together like him, while simultaneously being so nattily dressed.

The only thing I don’t understand yet is why he likes Twirls so much. It might take me another year to work that out, but I’ve got a lot of raw data and I’ve been following him at lunch times, so I’ll get there. I’ll get there.

I agree that it’s wrong to judge David Icke’s ideas based solely on the 12-hour, £60 seminar he devised for the purpose of explaining and promoting his ideas. Why do you arrogantly assume you can judge James’s opinion of Icke without doing 3 years’ worth of background reading?

I’m in a slightly weird position, like the writer (I don’t mean the crab or standing on my head). I like Icke and feel the media’s take on him is usually unfair (the focus on the lizards and the bogus ‘messiah’ quotes), but I also feel he lets himself down and speculates wildly from time to time. Ultimately, his message of positivity and things not being what they are seem pretty strong to me too. His own personal thoughts on what’s actually going on are just that – his own. It’s a shame he briefs us on things like the ‘moon matrix’ as though they are verifiable and actual fact.

Having said that, I was curious enough to look a bit further into his main points and, surprisingly, there’s a lot to back up his thought processes, if not his conclusions. The argument of ‘do further research’ is always lambasted (as in a comment above), but the fact is, 11 hours dismantling what we think we know is never going to be enough time and, if you take a leap of faith to go on your own personal voyage of discovery, then it’s both rewarding and regularly heaps credit on the ‘conspiracy theorists’ (I prefer ‘conspiracy researchers’ these days).

Not an urgent set of recommendations and I don’t mean to patronise with the old line of ‘you won’t possibly understand unless you read /watch the following’, but a few key books and films might entertain you, if you’re into this kind of thinking and minority view.

Gnosticism – along with other forms of mysticism, Gnosticism really forms the meat and bones of what Icke is saying. The creators of this planet, the Gnostics said, were demented and insane. His reptilians are the Archons of the Gnostic texts. I prefer the reptilian reference to be a symbolic archetype, it stops the whole thing being silly. John Lamb Lash’s Not In His Image is a fantastic polemic detailing the rise of Christianity and the quashing of the Cathars and Gnostics. I highly, highly recommend it. Here he is talking to Red Ice:

Then there’s the Geopolitical side. This is probably the most easily ridiculed. People hate the idea 9/11 might have been anything other than a terrorist attack by mad foreigners. I believe the applause at the point you mention, regarding the directed directed energy theory, may have been in praise of Doctor Judy Wood whose work is, at the very least, eye-opening and worth a look.

My own take on 9/11 is that the official narrative is nonsense (i’ve even read that bloody NIST report) but anything else is speculation. But whoever it was has certainly cast a spell of some sort on us. Literally – as any serious magician will point out. Materialists don’t believe in magic, but the simple fact is it exists, with or without them.

I’d also recommend Anthony Sutton’s work. His books on Skull & Bones and Hitler / Wall Street are extrememly interesting. Here he is. He has a nice voice.

Also, in terms of these kinds of messengers, I far prefer the work of Robert Anton Wilson to Icke. Personal preference, but his first Cosmic Trigger book took the roof off my brain, reprogrammed my synapses and all for the better. It’s incredible and I’ll buy it for you if you can’t afford it.

And there ends the lesson. I guess my point is that Icke is simply a manic street preacher (not in the Nicky Wire sense). He’s the man with an ‘End is nigh’ sandwich board who seems mad but we all suspect may be right in some way. Even more disturbing, further research seems to bear this out in many ways.

Please don’t feel obliged to engage with the above recommendations, they’re just there if you want them. Also, if you respond, please be nice. It’s my birthday today. Hooray!

Quite. I have two main problems with 9/11 conspiracies. The first is “did you not see the two huge fucking planes flying into the twin towers?” The second is that 99% of the conspiracies end with “It was the Jews that did it.”

I’m fascinated by both Icke and his fanbase. A couple of weeks ago, I posted a thing about the wacky theories David Icke’s forum users have about Jimmy Savile, and quickly found myself on the wrong end of their tinfoil-hatted rage. Two weeks on, I’m still being called a Masonic Sodomite.

It’s less of a giggle to me now though, having experienced those people first hand. It’s become obvious that the conspiracy world runs on a very ugly core of antisemitism and homophobia. To these people, everything is the fault of the Jews, and anyone even suspected of being gay is clearly a paedophile too. It’s like that terrible Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown gag about “I’m not saying every fookin’ Muslim is a suicide bomber, but every suicide bomber is a fookin’ Muslim.” Icke’s not saying that every Jew is a paedo, blood-drinking, money-grabbing space lizard, but every paedo, blood-drinking, money-grabbing etc etc.

It’s no exaggeration to say I’ve had thousands of search hits on my blog this past couple of weeks for variations on “was jimmy savile jewish?” They’re desperate for him to be Jewish, and looking for evidence of this everywhere, because being Jewish proves, to the conspiracy world, that Jimmy was indeed evil.

“the conspiracy world runs on a very ugly core of antisemitism and homophobia.” – this is a generalisation. A very poisonous one that is pervasive and unfair. The links I’ve posted above can be considered ‘conspiracy theory’ by ignorant folk, but they’re simply the result of good research and don’t contain an agenda.

Obviously a lot of conspiracy research has an agenda – the louder it is the more likely it is to be disinfo and agenda-driven (see Alex Jones). But there are brilliant researchers out there. Tarring them all with the same brush is bigoted and actually dangerous.

Liam, if you do not on principle accept the evidence of 1000s of witnesses in NYC that day, yet are all too willing to cry conspiracy when Judy Wood says how strange it is that the new WTC buildings are built on stilts encased in concrete (i.e. reinforced concrete), you possibly need to improve your capacity for objective, honest assessments of the evidence in front of you.

Hi Andy. It’s true though, is it not? You don’t know for sure. And it’s perfectly acceptable not to be sure.

Regarding Judy Wood – I didn’t recommend her. She’s there for reference because a lot of Icke fans cheered when they heard him mention her theory. The writer mentioned this. I don’t ascribe to any one theory, as I said above. Judy Wood is not at the forefront of my concern. In fact, if I did detail my speculative thoughts on 9/11, you would have so much ammunition for cynicism, we’d be here all day.

I’m not keen on web battles over 9/11 – there is too much information for it to be frittered away in online jousting. It actually demeans the horror of the event a little too.

To answer that one question, however, it appears something flew into the side of the buildings. Some initial reports said the first explosion was a helicopter. Many people reported hearing explosions in the basement of the building, including a janitor. There are a myriad contradictions and anomalies all over the place.

It’s fuzzy and there is no need to take a stance, beyond admitting openly there may be problems with the official account. I think we’re duty bound to do that. Certainly not wise to side with hard-liners – from the ‘controlled demolition’ crowd to the government narrative. I am open-minded, on principle, and I love to read and dissect information. Apparently this makes me incapacitated when it comes to debate. There are suspicions I am insane. But hey, at least I try to be nice.

Initial reports for any sudden, unexpected disaster are always going to be contradictory. That people were confused about the initial crash is not, in itself, a problem with the official account.

The question that matters is ‘which account of the 9/11 attacks best fits the available evidence?’. If there are problems with the official account, we should favour an explanation that predicts the facts better. But you don’t want to say what your alternative explanation is, because you don’t want to give people “ammunition for cynicism” (ie to test your theory against the available evidence).

The problem with many 9/11 researchers is that they look for ‘anomalies’, without considering ways they could be consistent with the official account. For example, Judy Wood has a big gallery of ‘toasted cars’ – wrecked cars found far away from the WTC site. The explanation consistent with the official theory is that they were dragged away from the site after the WTC collapse. Some of the photos show drag marks and stacked cars: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#peeling

Her explanation is that the cars were burned by a secret energy weapon that was used against the WTC. If that were the case, we’d expect eyewitness reports or even film of cars spontaneously catching fire far from the site. We could also check the original EXIF metadata on digital photos or visible clocks to show that the cars were like that immediately after the collapse, before they could have be dragged. Yet Wood fails to check this information.

It’s important to subject all competing explanations to the same standards of evidence. Look for problems in the official account, but also problems with competingt

Sorry, hit reply too soon. “Look for problems in the official account, but also problems with competing theories.” Take the strongest form of arguments you don’t like and try to debunk those, not the weakest (e.g. Try slightly modified forms of the official account to explain ‘anomalies’).

Since you don’t even believe Woods, why link to an hour of her talking? It seems like you just enjoy listening to these fringe theories as entertainment, so it’s tacky to then complain about demeaning the horror of the event.

I agree with the thrust of Ben’s comment, whilst adding that in your comment on Judy Wood you say that she is at the “very least, eye-opening and worth a look”. Sounds like a recommendation to me.

I think Ben is also right to question your sincerity about wanting to avoid demeaning those affected by 9/11. When the victims’ families and friends talk about their experiences after the event, many mention that continued, unwarranted speculation into the nature and cause of the deaths is both hurtful and an insult to their memory.

History is full of people who fallaciously claim to know how the world works. I think James’ article was a very amusing look at how one of these people presents their ideas and preaches to their following. Yet for some of these followers, the Enlightenment never happened; this despite them taking the underground/train/bus/car home, playing on their phones and generally filling their homes full of the evidence.

Well, I apologise if it seemed like a whole-hearted recommendation. It was a reference, and worth a look if you are interested in the many alternative speculations.

I said that it demeans *the horror of the event* to throw information around with abandon in an online forum in the form of argument. Which is slightly different. It’s simply my reason for continuously trying to avoid this debate, which you’ll notice I’m doing. I don’t like to focus on 9/11 any more – it’s an extremely negative point of focus. I’ve followed every avenue I feel I need to on the topic. You probably see this as evidence of me wriggling out of it, but we all know how these things go. Online battles never convince anyone either way. I don’t see why there’s this fervour for the likes of me to see ‘the error of our ways’. I am perfectly at liberty to remain open-minded about that event. Live and let live.

As for victims, survivors and their families, again you’re conveniently forgetting those who aren’t wholly convinced by the official narrative. Lots of them are in that camp. Particularly that janitor I mentioned.

I agree, history is full of those people who fallaciously claim to know how the world works. They usually work in positions of institutional power and have vested interests more lucrative than shifting Wembley tickets and paperbacks.

I guess if you remove the more outré elements of his ideas, his main thesis makes a lot of sense. Alejandro Jodorowsky (a brilliantly deranged guy himself) said it best: Instead of a Revolution, what we need is a Re-Evolution of Man.

This is delightfully written, although the cheerful concluding bit lost me.

I am what Denis Norden would call One of Those People who have previously been guilty of reducing Icke’s theory to being merely about lizards running the world, but from now on I will be sure to mention also that the moon “is not what it seems to be”. Now I’ve read Icke’s reasoning for this conclusion, it seems perfectly obvious and I can’t understand why I didn’t realise it before.

I recently walked past a house where the front windows were papered with newspaper cuttings. Some sentences had been highlighted in fluorescent yellow pen. The gist seemed to be that a man was being persecuted in some way, presumably the resident of the house, but he seemed to be drawing on quite a broad range of news stories to support this idea. Various celebrities, especially weather presenters, were involved in quite abstract ways. The difference between the man in that house and David Icke is that David Icke used to be on television, so when he had his breakdown and thought he was Jesus, it got him on Wogan.

But what about his followers? They have a kind of addiction to making “connections”. Some of them might be classified as crazy, but I suspect a lot are just ordinary people who haven’t thought about anything much before, and unfortunately for them, this is the first time they’ve questioned anything, and they’re being led on a merry dance by someone who is ill. If they can swallow one lot of “positive” nonsense just because a charismatic man says it, they’ll swallow another, less positive, lot of nonsense just as easily.

Just because someone can fill a stadium with their supporters, that can’t automatically make them admirable. Look at Robbie Williams and Hitler.

Ben Henley – the link was purely there for reference, to show the writer that’s who the crowd were probably cheering. I explicitly said I’m not a Dr Wood devotee. I said her work was eye-opening, because it is. Sorry you wasted your time on an incomplete debunk of one hour of Judy Wood having a conversation. The video popped up, I thought it would only be a link. It was illustrative, not a point for debate. I think that was clear.

“It seems like you just enjoy listening to these fringe theories as entertainment.”

– this is baseless and plain insulting, so I’ll leave it there except to say that the answer to your “question that matters is ‘which account of the 9/11 attacks best fits the available evidence?’” – is not the official version. Not for me, at least. If you’re comfortable with it, then I’m happy for you and wish you well! We will not convince one another in this corner of the internet, of that I am certain.

Earwicker… you use words like ‘breakdown’ and ‘making connections’. These are very much layman terms and, for me, these are better synonyms.

To your line “Some of them might be classified as crazy” I would reply with a Joseph Campbell quote:

“The schizophrenic is drowning in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight.”

I stay away from the tedious to-ing and fro-ing when it comes to online geopolitical debate. I am more interested in why different people think different things, and I’m not prepared to believe anyone is ‘mad’ until they’ve committed a criminal or unethical act. I don’t feel it’s my right.

Not to anyone specifically, just to say I appreciate articles like the above because they don’t label anyone. I don’t agree with James’ perspective entirely, but it’s compassionate towards someone with a minority view and that is the way forward – compassion. It’s a shame about some of the comments. I say that as, apparently, a crazy, drunk, incapacitated, conspiracy theory-rubbernecker. It’s so easy to throw around labels, isn’t it?

I agree that compassion is the way forward, but I think unrestricted exploration of the infinite space of randomly concocted and equally (which is to say: not very) plausible beliefs is – at best – the way sideways. To repeat, I don’t think Icke’s followers are all bonkers. They are just not familiar with what happens when you look for patterns in random data: you “find” them. This is their first attempt, and so they assume the results are significant. With practise, they would realise that coincidences just happen sometimes and would perhaps then get interested in the statistical idea of significance, i.e. the probability that something could have happened for no reason, which can at least serve as a guide as to whether any reason urgently needs to be suggested at all.

But Icke himself goes further, and explicitly rejects the notion of a common reality we all jointly inhabit and can agree on, i.e. he is not only bonkers, but actually holds up his hand and self-identifies as definitively bonkers, to the point of cliche and beyond.

Yes – you’ve got it in a nutshell. A good, old fashioned open mind is what I like to think I have.

It seems you are obsessed with belief. As though it’s imperative you have to have a belief.

I don’t believe anything. Someone much more intelligent than me once said ‘belief is the death of intelligence’.

There are ideologies and disciplines I find that tend to agree with my experience of reality and my internal meditations, but committing to any of them with their associated dogma would be foolish. You may wake up the next day with the whole world turned on its head if you commit to a belief-system in that way. You’re asking for trouble. I’m sure lots of people believed Sir Jimmy Savile was a lovely bloke. Look how that turned out.

But now most people believe Jimmy Saville was a predatory paedophile. Are they are wrong to believe that too? Better to just keep an open mind about it,

I think you’re conflating ‘belief systems’ with beliefs. You may not subscribe to any single ideology (probably wise) but you do have beliefs. You believe you have a good old-fashioned open mind. You believe something hit the WTC towers. You are certain we won’t convince each other on this corner of the Internet, and so on.

Earwicker – Apophenia, synchronicity, connections, random chance – call it what you will – that line of thinking begins to veer into the debate between spiritual mind and rationalist mind. I have a hunch that even the word ‘spiritual’ will give you the heebie-jeebies, but I like to read Jung (or maybe Peter Carroll) when I reach that point. It seems 9/11 has opened many minds to the possibility that synchronicity is more than just chance and it’s the avenue I most like to explore on that event. It requires a willingness to drop a hard-and-fast atheistic outlook at the door (which was hard for me at first). Also, I’m sorry if I seemed condescending, I really didn’t meant to be. Just pointing out that there are pejorative terms for a lot of human traits – it doesn’t mean the people displaying those characteristics are worthless, ‘bonkers’ or mad. They may be struggling with a new way of thinking – perhaps even a development in our evolution.

Ben – we have to be practical to get out of bed in the morning, of course. I believe breakfast materials are in the fridge, so I prise myself from the mattress – to that extent, yes, beliefs are essential to our functioning. But it’s unwise to commit 100% to any belief. I feel all my beliefs must be subject to change. Every last one of ’em. So I maybe should have said “I don’t have any solid beliefs other than those that are essential for my survival” rather than “I don’t believe anything”. Fair point.

This is possibly Icke’s mistake. He frames his ideas as facts. It was also my mistake when I got out of bed this morning to find the wife had finished the last of the milk. I still haven’t had breakfast.

Liam Tucker. I dont know you but I think your assesment of this blog and David Icke is excellent. Many of the things that David Icke proposes are very convincing and even brilliant. But many things he proposes as fact seem to lack enough strong evidence to present as fact. His resaerch opens your minds to alot. But he does seem to “connect alot of dots” progressively to make his points. That doesnt make them all true points individually. Keeping your mind open to all possiblities is critical. David Icke often says that he just follows the evidence as he sees it, even if ii is out of the realm of what most people are willing to call normal. I think that takes courage but most close-minded people wont take that leap no matter what information you put in front of them.

And yes, I do laugh at Icke,and I do make him a figure of fun but he’s better than the Mormons or that outfit ‘the dwarf’ puffs up. What’s it called??? Thingy, umm – oh, Scientology. Both of them have lizards and strange creatures and rubbish like that as well. Mind you – is Christianity any better?

Maybe if people either stopped believing in fairies or actually went out and did what their religion preaches the world would be a better place.

Icke’s mistake is charging money for this, whatever he says is compromised by this. His ideas are not his own, he is doing what many before him have done, he is creating a new religion to make money and he using a compost of ideas to do this. There are some truths in the things he says but they are not his revelations. People will pay to believe what they think they need to believe all the while knowing that deep down they do not need this belief nor do they need to pay for it. The rationale of the game is, the participants become the rationale, they suspend their own ability to think rationally for this administered process of thought, in which they give their confidence willingly.

That is brilliant, 3 quarters of the way through I was thinking “You now, he’s half as bat sh*t crazy as I thought he was” but then he ended the whole shebang with something very reminiscent of Mr Burns “I bring you love” dance on the Springfield X- Files episode of the Simpsons ! Genius

Conspiracy theories do occasionally, of course, turn out to be true. But not very often.

What does happen often, very often, is: people like to tell themselves, to convince themselves and others that they are very clever, or special, or just differentiate themselves from a crowd.They want to be special, to be somebody. As someone who wishes i was cleverer than i am, I recognise this feeling and often identify it in myself. I want people to think i’m smart, that i have a particular insight, that i can see through the bull. I also like to be cynical about peoples motives, sceptical about their claims and generally more street than your average sucker.

One pretty easy way of standing out is by signing up to a conspiracy theory. Even declaring that you have an ‘open mind’ on the issue sets you above all those closed minded fools. The benefits of this in terms of self aggrandisement are endless. You get to be the one in the know. You’ve done all the research (you watched some of the youtube vids almost all the way to the end and clicked on so many links and had so many open tabs that it feels like you’ve read a coherent, structured argument, but you haven’t, but nobody knows about that) You’ve scorned the sheeple that are so gullible. You are the hero that is trying to bring them the truth. You are the liberator, the emancipator, the… well… this is sadly only your own self image… you are in fact the bore, the nutter, the walter mitty, the fantasist. More Don Quixote than Simon Bolivar.

That started off so pleasantly, Fred, but then it turned into a familiar rant about stereotypical conspiracy theorists. Calling people ‘sheeple’ is as contemptible as calling other people ‘mad’ for having a minority view. Labels suck. Stereotypes suck too.

For the record, I don’t think anyone on here that’s communicated with me is a “closed-minded fool”. Not sure whether your stereotype was a criticism of me, but hey-ho. With regards to that self-loathing you mention, I hope one day you feel as clever as you probably already are!

That whole ‘conspiracy theorists all fink the jews dunnit’ argument is pathetic. It’s a generalisation, and even in general terms is woefully wrong. You will find some bigoted conspiracy types, just as you will find bigots anywhere – even in the comments section of this blog, perhaps.

Some conspiracy researchers blame a handful of Zionists, Zionism being a political movement many Jewish people oppose. Google ‘Jews against Zionism’. Also take a look at the Jewish people asking for a new investigation into 9/11. Are they also anti-Semitic?

Other conspiracy researchers point to rogue agents within the intelligence services internationally. To try and paint all conspiracy researchers as anti-Semites is plain ignorant. It also shows the mindset of the commenter. Uninformed and easily-led.

That’s it from me. Shame the comments devolved to such depths – toodle-oo.

David icke is not harmless. He is distracting millions of people from a genuine movement. He is an anti communist and an anti socialist. He is a libertarian disguised as some kind of mystical guide. He gets rich from his shows and pollutes peoples mind with shite about ‘love’. Love is not the exact solution and to tell people that you can not use violence when necessary goes against all rules of revolutionary movements, many of which have had massive successes.

Tom, what you fail to understand is that non violence is the answer. Can I throw Ghandi, and Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandella at you? (throw them at you in a figurative, non violent way of course). Sure, have people gather on the streets and behave violently. What then? The police and the army can justify shooting them down at will? and what of the successful revolutionaries? Those in Libya, aided and armed by the Western governments that quite openly deceive us into wars and curtailment of our liberty. How indebted are these “freedom fighters” to these western banks, governments, weapons manufacturers now? I’m sure that the people of these countries looked at Iraq, and thought “hey, let’s make things better by having a civil war and destroying our country”. I’m sure that these good revolutionaries who sodomised a man with a bayonet, executed him
And paraded his dead body on the streets to “Allah Akbar” are very decent moral individuals who should lead our society. The thousands of “Gadaffi’s men”, family’s etc also executed by way of “necessity” also goes on their promising record for a great looking future. Hitler was a revolutionary too, who based his campaign upon fear, lies ad violence. So too were the communists. Soon perhaps people may realise, that the only real revolution is one of peace. To have these angry violent ones in power attempt to fight the peaceful loving revolutionaries makes a mockery of them for the world to see. People have empathy, and are more likely to stand firm on their convictions when things are plain to see. To see peaceful people being treated unjustly may arouse within a huge number of us a willingness to unite and help each other for the good of man. Lest we forget that any oppressor depends upon ordinary folk wearing a military uniform and pulling the trigger. Many might be subject to the overt brainwashing of the ‘army discipline’ “yes sir sir! Lose my life for you to gain a metre of mud? Whatever you tell me to sir! Drop bombs on villages ! killing women and children? Yessssiiirr

Huh? I dont consider the Libyan ‘rebels’ revolutionaries. They were backed by the west.
To use Mandelas name as someone who does not understand the need for violent struggle when necessary is wrong. He was part of a mass communist movement which opposed the liberal idea that the revolutionaries are the violent ones, understanding that its their oppressors who are the real violent criminals who do not allow peaceful processes to take place and then criminalise revolutionaries.

Hitler was not a revolutionary, despite what he might of said. He wanted to restore the old order (colonial ideology, ancient Roman empire etc). He was an imperialist leader who wanted to re-affirm the existing world order, but just under his nation (Germany) and not others (Britain/USA). He used the ideas of fascism to do this, as you know, which are not communist or anything to do with communism, but can appeal to a nationalist and petit-bourgeois base.

Hello! I’m the bloke whose dancing you compared to David Baddiel. I just have to correct you on one error – my trousers were snakeskin spandex, not brown cords. Everything else is fairly accurate – I didn’t do it specifically to kiss a girl, but I’m sure it hasn’t stopped me getting my hole.

I accept your apology Leo, thank you, and yes, I am an effete milquetoaste. Anyone who would object to the phrase “getting my hole” must be an effete milquetoaste. Incidentally, David Baddiel read this blog post and I think he was slightly offended when I compared your dancing to his.

I’ve just unwisely returned to this conversation. Whoever that L’s M comment was from is clearly a completely cowardly troll. Surprised you didn’t delete it, James. It’s not like it adds to the conversation or is even remotely funny. Pretty offensive stuff.

I think I was pretty reasonable in all the exchanges above, but didn’t I get a drubbing, eh? How brilliant that we all have such open minds and don’t react to a difference in perspective with abuse and anonymous piss-taking. I’d fucking despair if I didn’t have better stuff to do.

Your assesment of David Icke is very typical of people with a limited understanding of David icke. Its amazing how easy it is for ignorant people to question people/s message and integrity from just tid-bits of readings or presentations they have seen of them.

EYE the all seeing from the Photonic belt of the Cranky Shift Solar System warn you gullible earthlings that the government want people like David Icke to strut his stuff because It confuses and dumbs down the masses.
Look what the mobile phone Is doing!!
It Is putting the masses Into a virtual reality and some even get run over by cars for not concentrating.cause a road accidents on the motorway
Bump Into Each other and using foul language.
TV reality shows keeps you dumbed down
Mcdonalds and alcohol will kill off the young and cutting the winter fuel payments will kill the old.

Today there Is no respect for anyone.
Selfishness rules
No one opens a door for the old or a Lady .

David Icke Is a low vocabulary person who has to use swearing or 4 letter words on stage..

It tells me all I need to know about this earth today.

To be a better entity
Teach children respect.
Service to Others
Marriage only between man and woman
Obey the rules of life

LOVE IS THE KEY TO THE UNIVERSE
All you need to know Is what your Inside tells you.

Tell me where are all these Lizards and shape shifters!!!!???
I could use a shape shifter to break Into all these corrupt banks!!!